Vouchers AKA Rich White Men Against Welfare Really Do Care About Black Kids
In the beginning, there was the first study:
Students in the D.C. school voucher program, the first federal initiative to spend taxpayer dollars on private school tuition, generally performed no better on reading and math tests after one year in the program than their peers in public schools, the
U.S. Education Department said yesterday.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/21/AR2007062101295.html
Which, of course, statistically doesn't prove too much because that would be expected. So they advised to wait.
> Although students in Ohio’s limited Educational Choice Scholarship program take the same tests required of public schools, the state doesn’t release or monitor private school scores. Through a public-records request, the Cincinnati Enquirer discovered higher failure rates among voucher recipients than among Ohio public school students.
> An ongoing five-year examination of the nation’s oldest voucher program, the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program, uncovered little difference in test scores between voucher recipients and their public school counterparts. While voucher proponents often try to dismiss such research as biased, the School Choice Demonstration Project evaluating the Milwaukee program includes pro-voucher researcher Jay Greene.
> The much-ballyhooed voucher program in Washington, D.C., also failed to yield the promised results. Last summer, the U.S. Department of Education —- headed at the time by Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, a voucher proponent —- found for the second year in a row that voucher students fared no better on standardized math and reading tests than public school peers.
> In reviewing the research on vouchers, a team from Princeton University and the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago concluded last year: “The best research to date finds relatively small achievement gains for students offered education vouchers, most of which are not statistically different from zero, meaning that those gains may have arisen by chance. Further, the very little evidence about the potential for public schools to respond to increased competitive pressure generated by vouchers also suggests that one should remain wary that large-scale improvements would result from a more comprehensive voucher system.”
[emphasis mine]
http://georgia.baeo.org/news?news_id=1980
Well, again no improvement for a second year. And if you read the other bits quoted, you will see a common theme: Both sides often disprove the other's research and put forth their own. This is one of the things that make this issue so difficult to properly debate, there is just too many variables to make broad generalizations and there is always data that is left out of studies.
For the second year in a row, researchers have found little to no overall difference in the standardized-test scores of students who are enrolled in private schools under the District of Columbia’s federally funded voucher program and their peers who attend public schools in the nation’s capital.
Specifically, for students who had attended public schools deemed to be failing before the students took part in the voucher program—a high-priority target for the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program—the new federal study shows no statistically significant impacts on their test scores.
http://www.edweek.org/login.html?so...rticles/2008/06/16/43dc_web.html&levelId=2100
Further detail. One positive note:
At the same time, the researchers found that being offered or using a voucher under the scholarship program may have improved reading scores for three other subgroups of students, though researchers urged that those impacts be “interpreted and used with caution.”
But not too positive...
There is no credible evidence that school vouchers improve student achievement. Two studies from Bush’s own Department of Education found that the voucher program in Washington D.C. has had no impact on students’ academic performance. [Department of Education
2007,
2008] An exhaustive eight-year study of Milwaukee’s school voucher program reached the same conclusion. [
Economic Policy Institute] The Milwaukee study also found that vouchers failed to raise public school achievement through competition, as many conservatives had claimed they would.
http://www.ourfuture.org/makingsense/factsheet/school-vouchers
And again... But new, and as I have to say many times:
There is no credible evidence that private schools are better than public schools. There is virtually no difference between public and private school students’ academic achievements, once family background characteristics are taken into account. [
U.S. Department of Education,
Center on Education Policy] Attending a private school does not make a low-income student more likely to attend college, or to find a satisfying job later in life. [
Center on Education Policy]
Vouchers fail to put private education in reach of students from the neediest families. Voucher programs do not cover the full cost of tuition at many private schools, leaving families and the schools to make up the difference. New Orleans, for example, caps voucher payments at $6,300, though the area’s elite private schools charge tuitions of over $20,000 a year. [
Times-Picayune] Vouchers also fail to help low-income families meet other costs of private education, such as uniforms, books, and transportation.
Private schools receiving vouchers are not held to the same level of accountability as public schools. Even though vouchers are funded with public-school dollars, the private schools that take them do not have to meet the same standards that public schools do, such as those outlined in the No Child Left Behind law. In Washington, D.C., nearly 18 percent of schools that received vouchers reported that a significant proportion of their teachers lacked bachelor’s degrees, and many of the schools were not accredited. [
Government Accountability Office]
Some stalwart advocates of vouchers have either repudiated the idea entirely or considerably tempered their enthusiasm for it. Exhibit A is "School Choice Isn't Enough," an article in the winter 2008 City Journal (the quarterly published by the conservative Manhattan Institute) written by the former voucher proponent Sol Stern. Acknowledging that voucher programs for poor children had "hit a wall," Stern concluded: "Education reformers ought to resist unreflective support for elegant-sounding theories, derived from the study of economic activity, that don't produce verifiable results in the classroom." His conversion has triggered an intense debate in conservative circles. The center-right education scholar Chester E. Finn Jr., president of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and a longtime critic of public school bureaucracies and teachers unions, told the New York Sun that he was sympathetic to Stern's argument. In his newly published memoirs, Finn also writes of his increasing skepticism that "the market's invisible hand" produces improved performance on its own. Howard Fuller, an African American who was the superintendent of schools in Milwaukee when the voucher program was launched there, and who received substantial support from the Bradley Foundation and other conservative institutions over the years, has conceded, "It hasn't worked like we thought it would in theory."
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2008/0804.anrig.html
Conservatives have backed off the idea. Because, as I've said before, it comes from free market economists, not education experts, and shows no or poor results.
Neither of these pressures has had a discernible impact on public school performance. In Wisconsin, this was made starkly evident in last year's results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the federally sponsored gold standard of testing. Reading scores for black fourth- and eighth-grade students were the lowest of any state, and the reading achievement gap between black and white students remains the worst in the nation. Since about 70 percent of Wisconsin's black students attend Milwaukee public schools, any competition-induced improvements evidently haven't amounted to much. One study, by Harvard's Caroline M. Hoxby, a voucher advocate, purported to find test score improvements in the Milwaukee public schools most affected by the risk of losing students to private schools; but the gains may have been caused simply by the lowest-performing students moving to private schools, as Hoxby herself concedes. In any case, the Manhattan Institute's Stern points out that Hoxby's analysis, published in 2001, is outdated compared to the more comprehensive and recent NAEP results, and calls the public school performance in Milwaukee after years of voucher competition "depressing."
Competition to public schools hasn't done much either.
In the Cleveland public schools, fourth-grade math scores on the NAEP test improved significantly from 2003 to 2005, though comparable gains occurred in seven of ten other big cities without vouchers. Cleveland's fourth-grade reading test improvements were more modest, and smaller than gains in Atlanta and New York City—neither of which has a public voucher program.
This again highlights the gargantuan amount of data available and the many variables that people can not account for.
Last October, however, WPRI produced a report on the Milwaukee voucher experience, titled "The Limits of Parent-Driven Reform," that confessed: "The report you are reading did not yield the results we hoped to find. We had expected to find a wellspring of hope that increased parental involvement in the Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS) would be the key ingredient in improving student performance." Instead, the institute found that only 10 percent of parents had been the kind of "active consumers" that would "exert market-based influence to the school system," and concluded that focusing on parental choice and involvement "cannot be seen as a substitute for substantive reforms in the hierarchy of MPS and in the classrooms throughout Milwaukee." WPRI employed questionable methodology to reach its conclusions, as it had often done in the past, but this time the results undercut an initiative the institute had championed for years.
Parent involvement improvement... Not so much, even by advocate research.
The heart of the problem with our urban schools is neither the education bureaucracies nor teachers unions, as Chubb, Moe, and many other voucher advocates have contended, flawed though those institutions may be. Instead, as the sociologist James S. Coleman found in the 1960s, a student's family's income and the collective social and economic background of his classmates are by far the most important influences on his academic future. Not only do lower-income students tend to score relatively poorly, children of any background who attend high-poverty schools are far more likely to produce worse test results than they would in schools with primarily middle-class students. America's urban school systems remain almost universally dysfunctional, primarily because the country as a whole is about as segregated by race and income as at any time since the civil rights revolution.This means that in the existing voucher programs, which have been confined to city school districts, students have had only a limited choice between public schools in low-income neighborhoods and private institutions—mostly parochial schools—that serve almost identical populations. In 2005, a team of reporters from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel visited all but a handful of the private choice schools, and found that "the voucher schools feel, and look, surprisingly like schools in the Milwaukee Public Schools district. Both ... are struggling in the same battle to educate low-income, minority students." The Journal Sentinel also reported that the absence of oversight from the much-derided government bureaucracy had led to a significant waste of public funds, and even outright fraud.
Recently, national studies of NAEP tests have confirmed that private and charter schools on average perform little or no better than traditional public schools (and in some cases worse), after taking into account the socioeconomic background of the students.
As I've said many times, socioeconomic factors are one of the biggest factors in student success. Vouchers don't change this.
But a
U.S. Department of Education study released in June showed that students in the program generally scored no higher on reading and math tests after two years than public school peers. The findings are consistent with previous studies of the voucher program.
Leslie Nabors Olah, senior researcher for the Consortium for Policy Research in Education, a coalition of five prominent universities, said that the D.C. voucher program hasn't shown immediate benefits and that more research needs to be done.
"We have no evidence that vouchers work," Nabors Olah said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...2008101603642.html?sid=ST2008101700845&s_pos=
More expert! If only I had video of her reading a book...
What does the research say about
vouchers?
The mostcredible scientific researchhas indicated no
differences in the academic achievement of voucher
studentscomparedtopublicschoolstudents,despitethe
factthatprivate schools get tochoose which studentswill
attendtheirschools.
3
Pro-voucherresearch
4
has been
discredited as methodologicallyflawed.
5
Furthermore, vouchers do not improve public schools
by creating competition.
6
Public and private schools
operate on very different playing fields so true compe-
tition between the two is impossible.
Again, people love to disprove each other's research. But there is good info here:
But
that’s not the case in Milwaukee, where taxpayers
must come up with an additional $1,000 per voucher
student over and above what they spend on each
public school student. Voucher supporters also
don’t mention the fact that fixed costs—things
such as salaries and benefits for staff, maintenance,
utilities, and supplies—are not reduced when a few
students spread across different grade levels leave
a public school for a voucher school. Instead, those
students take their entire per pupil expenditure with
them, leaving the school to fund its programs and
staff with fewer public dollars.
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache...ucation+voucher+cost&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us
You should realize the voucher cost math is bad when you see how simple it is
.
Of course, this is one of those issues that also lends itself to increased variability so you can't make general statements about it.
I fail to see how poor children are served by distorting data to suggest that all their public schools are failures. Over the past 30 years, we have halved the performance gap between black and white students, and in the last five years alone, we have raised the achievement of our poorest children by a grade level. I also cannot see how poor children are served by using unverifiable anecdotes to claim that virtually all the nonpublic schools they attend are successful, including ones that, Mr. Rosen admits, “promote disquietingly false ideas.” The evidence is clear that public and private school achievement is comparable when student background is taken into account.
Again, stupid "Oh noes, they are failing us" is stupid on both sides.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/are-school-vouchers-the-answer--9175
Rather than reversing what Mr. Rosen calls “the cruel process of marginalization” among poor, mostly minority students, vouchers are more likely to have the opposite effect. Consider New Zealand's decision to bring “choice” to its 2,700 public schools. When schools there have more applicants than seats, they are entitled to develop “enrollment schemes” to help them select students. As a result, the country's best schools—not necessarily its parents—are doing all the choosing, and disadvantaged students are increasingly concentrated in low-ranked institutions.
There is nothing in the nature of private and religious schools in the U.S. to suggest a different outcome if vouchers were to become a “full-scale public policy” here, as Mr. Rosen plainly hopes. Catholic schools, which comprise a large majority of voucher schools in Milwaukee and Cleveland, already reject two-thirds of their applicants. Exclusive private schools reject nine out of every ten.
Private schools can reject whoever they hell they want to.
But consider Wisconsin's four-year-old Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE) program—now in 78 schools, many of them in Milwaukee. It currently targets students in kindergarten to third grade at an average additional per-pupil cost of approximately $1,300. SAGE features smaller classes, a rigorous curriculum, before-and after-school programs, and high-level professional development and accountability for teachers—in short, the very things that characterize successful schools everywhere.
The most recent evaluation of the program found that students in first and third grades scored higher in language arts and math than their public-school counterparts. More importantly perhaps, African-American SAGE students—many of them the same students targeted by voucher programs—made significantly larger gains than students in a comparison group, closing the achievement gap between themselves and white students. Instead of spending $40 million on 8,000 Milwaukee voucher students, why not spend the same $40 million on 30,000 SAGE students?
There is better evidence for the education based reforms out there.
Students who previously attended struggling schools -- a group the program is designed to help -- showed no boost in test scores compared with their peers. Grover J. "Russ" Whitehurst, director of the institute, said one possible explanation is that those children lagged far behind academically and had trouble adjusting to what may be a more demanding classroom.
Parents of students with scholarships were more satisfied with their children's new schools and were less likely to worry that schools could be dangerous, the report found. Students showed no difference in their level of satisfaction.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6/17/ST2008061700181.html?sid=ST2008061700181
Yay for meaningless feel good for parents!
6. A tale of three cities: Milwaukee, Washington, D.C., and New York
Thanks to a Wisconsin Supreme Court decision in 1998, Milwaukee's experimental voucher program expanded to private religious schools. By 2007, 15 thousand voucher students attended more than 100 private schools. Milwaukee also has full public school choice, including charter and magnet schools. The bottom line is that with all this choice and competition, Milwaukee's test scores have not increased since 1999-2000, after a modest rise followed the initial announcement of the voucher program expansion.
Similarly, In Washington, D.C., charter schools and vouchers were supposed to raise dismal student performance in a school district many considered the most inefficient in the country. About a third of DC students shifted to non-traditional, publicly funded charter and voucher schools. Yet, after more than five years of choice, students in charter and voucher schools do no better than students in public schools, and students in public schools are doing no better because of competition from charter and voucher schools.
In contrast, New York City went for the teacher improvement strategy. The City raised starting teachers' salaries and promoted teaching fellowships and the Teach for America program to bring more high achieving college graduates into City schools. Expanding the pool of good teachers has raised the quality of teaching for low-performing students, and this seems to have had a major impact on overall test scores, especially increasing learning gains at the bottom of the achievement distribution.
http://ed.stanford.edu/suse/news-bureau/displayRecord.php?tablename=susenews&id=495
Because I like to drill things in, and this again shows educational based reforms showing real improvement.
In sum, there is little evidence of overall improve-
ment in test score outcomes for students offered an
education voucher from privately funded voucher
programs. Although there may be evidence that some
subgroups of students benefit from being offered a
voucher, the evidence is not robust to sensible alter-
native ways of constructing the analysis sample. In
addition, the results of these experiments may not be
valid for thinking about the average benefits of offer-
ing vouchers to all students.
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache...t+to+public+schools&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=28&gl=us
This paper in particular is really great at showing just how messy the data is.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] The Republican Congress in January earmarked $75 million for voucher programs in several cities, giving not a damn that voters across the nation have rejected such schemes at every opportunity presented to them. As recently as last November, a Zogby poll showed 85 percent of DC Blacks and 76 percent of District voters in general, opposed vouchers. No matter. The White House discovered that even its dull-witted Secretary of Education, Rod Paige, could convince Mayor Williams to betray his constituents. Williams agreed to embrace vouchers, in return for vague assurances that the public schools would also see large increases in federal funds – a formula that can be found nowhere in the voucher crowd’s grand strategy, existing only in Williams’ mind.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Non-voting Delegte Norton would get to vote on the House floor under the informal (and probably bogus) terms of Davis’ devil’s-deal. But she’s not a party to the farce. Speaking before hearings of the House Government Reform Committee, of which she is a member, Norton said that vouchers would drain the public schools of millions of dollars:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]“Our public schools will lose a combination of $12,557 per pupil in both D.C. and federal funds because every school system must be funded on a per-pupil basis. This would be a blow D.C. public school funding simply cannot afford today."[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Vouchers would vanish as a national issue if subjected to democratic tests. There is certainly no “voucher movement” among Black Americans, only a mercenary band of educational hustlers bankrolled by rightwing foundations and, now, directly funded by the Bush administration. [/FONT]
http://www.blackcommentator.com/49/49_dc.html
This guy is delicious in his utter contempt.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"It's D.C. today. It's Chicago tomorrow, St. Louis, New Orleans, Los Angeles next week, then it's all of America. The message...goes far beyond Washington, DC," warned Rep. Danny Davis (D-IL) as the
House passed a $10 million private schools voucher bill for the nation’s capital. [/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Black Chicago Congressman’s rhetorical flourish was actually understated. The phony voucher “movement,” hatched only a few years ago by the same rich, racist, rightwing foundation that funded Charles Murray’s infamous book, “
The Bell Curve,” has proven to be the perfect Trojan Horse. Hard Right money has successfully infested – poisoned – the national Black body politic, a penetration so deep and toxic, the victims of the “experiment” may never recover.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The lavishly funded
conspiracy – an eminently proper use of the word – began in the Milwaukee boardrooms of the Bradley Foundation, which has invented and bankrolled ($400-plus million to date) virtually every anti-Black, anti-labor, anti-environment, and anti-women political offensive and front group of the past two decades. Bradley’s purpose was to create an alternative Black “leadership” that owes its very existence to the checkbooks of the rich, white, Hard Right. To this end, and with additional millions from the Olin, Scaife, Walton (Wal-Mart) foundations and other Republican moneybags, Bradley’s operatives created media impressions of a “movement” that had never before existed, based on a “demand” that Black people had never advanced: public funding of private schools. [/FONT]
http://www.blackcommentator.com/55/55_cover_vouchers.html
Seriously, I love this guy's irrational hate, but he does get in good info.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]On the evening of September 9, House GOP leadership staged a surprise vote on H.R. 2765. Forty miles away, the Congressional Black Caucus was co-sponsoring with Fox TV a Democratic presidential candidates debate. Despite furious efforts by DC Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton and House Democratic leadership, the voucher bill passed by one vote. In addition to candidates Dennis Kucinich and Dick Gephardt, eight other Democrats failed to make it back to the House floor to cast their votes against vouchers, including Congressional Black Caucus members Elijah Cummings (MD), Harold Ford (TN), Charles Rangel (NY) and Edolphus Towns (NY). [/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Republicans rebuffed requests from Democratic leadership and the Black Caucus to reschedule the vote (Rep. Cummings is Caucus Chairman), and the bill goes to the Senate for the final battle, later this month. There, key Democrat Diane Feinstein (D-CA), a 30-year opponent of vouchers for her state or the public schools in general, has decided to make an exception in the case of mostly Black Washington, DC. “If we look at what works for children,” Feinstein told the
September 4 Washington Post, “we would probably agree that different models have to be provided, because what works for one child may not necessarily work for another." Translation: Vouchers are bad policy for white kids, but hell, let’s experiment on the Black children.[/FONT]
Yes, democracy at work.
The November forum included the city's African-American legislators in the state Assembly and Senate. All criticized ongoing attempts by Republicans to expand the voucher program beyond low-income families attending schools in Milwaukee. They were especially critical of the hypocrisy of pro-voucher suburban Republican legislators pushing expansion. "These champions of school choice are the same people who want to end four-year-old kindergarten," Sen. Gwen Moore (D-Milwaukee) noted. "You have to wonder what the ultimate objective is for those [suburban legislators] who say the only thing that is important is school choice."
While the Milwaukee voucher program has increased the number of African Americans in private schools, whites still remain a majority in the private schools. (Whites account for about 15 percent of Milwaukee's public school enrollment.) In addition, voucher schools are even more segregated than public schools, according to data from the Public Policy Forum in Milwaukee. More than half the 107 voucher schools in 2002-03 were at least 90 percent non-white, and almost a third enrolled only non-white students. At the same time, five voucher schools enrolled more than 90 percent white students.
In Cleveland, meanwhile, vouchers disproportionately benefit white students, according to a study of the program released in December. While African Americans represent 71 percent of students in the public schools, they account for only 52 percent of voucher students. Whites represent just 20 percent of public school students but 34 percent of voucher students.
The study, conducted by the Indiana University School of Education, also found that over four years there were no "statistically significant" differences in the academic achievement of voucher students compared to students in the public schools.
http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/18_03/kpsp183.shtml
This is a good article for all those people proclaiming this is the best "Civil Rights" movement, like that Civil Rights activist John McCain
.
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:9tTwhyCG5gEJ:www.nsba.org/MainMenu/Advocacy/FederalLaws/SchoolVouchers/VoucherStrategyCenter/The-Case-Against-Private-School-Vouchers.aspx+The+Case+Against+Private+School+Vouchers+(2009)&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
Under the appropriations legislation, Washington, D.C.’s school voucher program will come to an end after the 2009-10 school year, unless both Congress and the Council of the District of Columbia reauthorize it.
http://www.worldmag.com/webextra/15056
This was an issue of reauthorization. And after how it passed, who the hell would do that?
No academic advantage in publicly‐funded voucher programs
A 2001 GAO report to Congress confirmed that the official, state‐mandated and state‐funded evaluations of the Milwaukee and Cleveland voucher programs “found little or no difference in voucher and public school students’ performance.” The same report also cast doubt on the validity of research that claimed positive academic benefits from vouchers, noting that the studies of Milwaukee and Cleveland by pro‐voucher researchers Jay Greene and Paul Peterson contained flaws so significant that GAO could not include the results.
Kim Metcalf, the state‐contracted researcher for the Cleveland program, found that students who attended private schools that were established to take advantage of the voucher program (fulfilling the free market theory that new schools will emerge to meet demand) were outperformed academically by their public school peers in all academic subjects.
Meanwhile, a Congressionally‐mandated evaluation of the federally‐funded Washington, D.C. voucher program has twice found no statistically significant differences in academic achievement between voucher students and their public school peers.
Pro‐voucher research on privately‐funded voucher programs debunked
With research on taxpayer‐funded voucher programs unhelpful to their cause, voucher advocates have also funded research into privately‐funded voucher programs seeking evidence to support their claims. And despite trumpeting findings from research into programs in New York City and Dayton (Ohio) the pro‐voucher claims unraveled under scrutiny. For example, the aforementioned Peterson promoted academic gains for African‐American students in the New York City program during the 2000 presidential campaign, only to see the policy research company that gathered and analyzed the data call those claims “premature.” That was followed by Princeton University researchers who reanalyzed the data and concluded that the so‐called gains for voucher students were statistically insignificant and the previous claims could be substantiated only by excluding achievement results of 44 percent of the students in the experiment. Meanwhile, the Dayton portion of the Peterson study ended after two years because too few voucher students remained in the private schools for any data to be statistically relevant.
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:9tTwhyCG5gEJ:www.nsba.org/MainMenu/Advocacy/FederalLaws/SchoolVouchers/VoucherStrategyCenter/The-Case-Against-Private-School-Vouchers.aspx+The+Case+Against+Private+School+Vouchers+(2009)&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
Because I like drilling things in, and features some of the debunking both sides do.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Lisa Graham Keegan, head of the Education Leaders Council,
claims the DC vouchers bill “provides District residents with a new civil right – the right to rise above mediocrity, change a failing school system, and provide all students with access to a quality education.” Yet the private schools clamoring for vouchers reject standards that would show whether they are excellent, mediocre, or worse. These schools reserve the right to accept or reject students, and the vast majority of them have no capacity for special education. Moreover, there is no evidence, anywhere, that voucher schools perform better than public schools. (See “
A conversation on school vouchers,” Economic Policy Institute, June 12, 2003.) [/FONT]
http://www.blackcommentator.com/79/79_cover_teachers.html
Drilling in, and this link has a lot about those evil teachers.
I call this "death by a thousand sources". And no, I won't summarize for you, read the whole damn thing.
